SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th March 1951
H.J. KANIA C.J.I., PATANJALI SASTRI AND S.R. DAS, JJ.
Santosh Kumar Jain - Applt.
Versus
The State. Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1950.
Advocates appeared
Shri N. C. (Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (Shri Rameshwar Nath, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri Rajinder Narain, Agent -- for Applt.; Shri S. K. Mitra, Sr. Advocate (Shri K. Dayal, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri R. C. Prasad, Agent - for the State ; Shri S. M. Sikri, Advocate, instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent- for Intervener (Union of India).
Held: (1) It is manifest that sub-so (2) of S. 3 confers no further or other powers on the Central Government than what are conferred under sub-so (1) for it is "an order made there under" that may provide for one or the other of the matters specifically enumerated in sub-so (2) which are only illustrative as such enumeration is "without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-so (1)". Seizure of an article being thus shown to fall within the purview of sub-so (1) it must be competent for the Central Government, or its delegate the Provincial Government to make an order for seizure under that sub-section apart from and irrespective of the anticipated contravention of any other orders as contemplated in d. (j) of subs. (2).
1.The relevant portion of S. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, runs as follows:-
"3(1) The Central Govt. so far as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, may, by notified order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof, an d trade and commerce therein.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-So (1) an order made there under may provide:
(2) The term notified order which is defined as meaning "an order notified in the official Gazette" is wide enough to cover special as well as general orders relating to the matters specified in S. 3. The powers to provide for regulating or prohibiting production, distribution and supply conferred on an executive body may well include the power to regulate or prohibit by issuing directions to a particular producer or dealer of by requiring any specific act to be done or forborne III regard to production etc. and the provisions of S. 4 lend support to that view.
Judgment
Patanjali Sastri J.- This is an appeal from a judgment of the H. C. of Judicature at Patna dismissing a revn. petn. against the conviction of the applt. for an offence under S. 186, Penal Code.
2. The applt. was at all material times the General Manager of the Jagdishpur Zamindary Co. (hereinafter referred to as the company) who were the lessees of a sugar factory referred to in these proceedings as the Bhita Sugar Factory. He was prosecuted for obstructing the then Dist. Mag. & the Special Officer-in-charge of Rationing, Patna, in the discharge of their official functions when they went to the factory on 6-12-1947 to remove 5,000 maunds of sugar which had been seized out of the stock held by the Company pursuant to an order of the Govt. of Bihar dated 5-12-1947. The case for the prosecution was as follows : The Company had deliberately failed to comply with the orders for supply of sugar issued from time to time under the provisions of the Sugar & Sugar Products Control Order,1947, by officers of the Govt. duly authorised in that behalf, & in consequence, the Govt. made the following order on 5-12-1947 : "In exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Govt. by cl. (j) of sub-s. (2) of S. 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, which have been delegated to the Provincial Govt. in relation to foodstuffs in the notin. of the Govt. of India, Dept. of Food, No. PY-603 (2)-1 dated 21-10-1946, the Governor of Bihar is pleased : (1) to authorise the Dist. Mag Patna &/or the Special Officer-in-charge of Rationing. Patna, to search the stock of sugar held by Messrs. Jagdishpur Zamindary Co. Bhita, in the Dist. of Patna, which is about to commit a contravention of the order of the Chief Controller of Prices & supplies, Bihar, made under cl. 7 (1) (ii), Sugar- & Sugar Products Control Order, 1947, & issued in order No. 1613-P.C.R. dated 27-9-1947 in so far as the said order relates to the said Company, & (2) to direct that 5,000 maunds of sugar held in stock by the said Company shall be seized. By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd. T. P. SINGH, Secretary to Govt."
3. On 6-12-1947 when the officers named went to the factory to carry out the aforesaid order, they were told by the applt. that he would do everything possible to obstruct the removal of the sugar, & accordingly it was found that the sugar godowns had been locked & the road leading to them blocked by heaps of coal, firewood & tins placed across, so as to make vehicular traffic impossible. A railway siding leading to the godowns had also been rendered unserviceable by the removal of some of the rails & fishplates. As a result of such obstruction, the officers had to seek the aid of armed police to break open the locks, repair the railway line & clear the road block before the sugar could be removed from the factory.
4. The applts . main defence was that on a proper construction of S. 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was not competent for the Govt. to pass the order of 5-19-1947, which was consequently illegal & void, & that obstruction to the execution of that order could not constitute an offence under S. 186, Penal Code. The contention was rejected & the applt. was convicted & sentenced to simple imprisonment for & term of three weeks.
5. On appeal, the Ses. J. Patna, confirmed the conviction & sentence, agreeing with the findings of the trial Ct. & a revn. petn. preferred by the applt. was rejected by the H. C. which, however, granted a certificate under Art.134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Ct. as it involved a point of "sufficient public importance" as to the interpretation of S. 3 of the Act. Section 3, so far as it is material here, runs as follows : "3. (1) The Central Govt. so far as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity, or for securing their equitable distribution & a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.